My thoughts, posted during a recent back-and-forth on a marvellous Facebook site called Non-Profit Happy Hour:

Martyrs get what they deserve: martyrdom.

You do not owe any organization your private life, health, and happiness — and the longer you live, the more you will discover that your loyalty is never repaid, except perhaps in some good friendships and references. The first day of any of my full-time senior development jobs, I always found out when lunch was and made a point of disappearing at the appointed hour. I got all of my work done and probably a lot more, and outlasted most of the other staff.

A wonderful NPO in Massachusetts where I worked as Director of Development insisted on waged and salaried staff taking comp time within the two-week pay period. RESPOND, Inc. fostered a productive, caring environment for team members doing tough domestic violence work. The former Executive Director and I are still close.

Philanthropic organizations need to model philanthropy inside their walls, as well as to the outside world!

]]>And now for some GOOD news on VAT and direct mail…http://www.fundraisingpoint.net/2018/04/17/and-now-for-some-good-news-on-vat-and-direct-mail/
Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:49:24 +0000http://www.fundraisingpoint.net/?p=362Read the Rest...]]>It took them awhile to get this right, but looks like the news about VAT on direct mail is good. Now to reconcile that with the restrictions on who can be mailed in the first place …

Court case could lead to reduction in cost of direct mail

A recent decision by the VAT tribunal could lead to a cut in the cost of direct mail for charities, and could let some charities and agencies reclaim big tax bills.

The decision, in the case of an insurer, concerns the printing and delivery of insurance packs – very similar to charity fundraising packs, which in 2014 were subject to a change in VAT treatment by HM Revenue & Customs that raised costs for charities and left some facing significant one-off bills.

The decision would have cost the sector tens of millions of pounds if charities had not successfully lobbied for exemptions. As it was, several suppliers still faced six- and seven-figure financial penalties, much of which they passed on to their charity clients.

Several suppliers were unable to pay and were forced into administration.

Charities were able to restructure their arrangements with suppliers in a way that has led to relatively small increases in VAT bills in the long term, but the changes are still likely to have cost the sector well over £1m a year.

However, all of that could now be reversed. Elliott says the parallels between the Paragon case and charities’ situation are “striking” and that if the case is not appealed, or if the Upper Tribunal supports the first-tier tribunal’s view, then it is likely that HMRC will have to change its guidance.

“All of this has visited a great deal of difficulty on charities and their printers, and wasted a lot of their time,” he said. “If this decision is upheld then all of that will have been proven unnecessary.”

A prevailing myth of both the Data Protection Act and more recently, the GDPR is that you can only use a person’s personal data with their consent, and a subset of this belief is that although you can use personal data without gaining consent first, that this practice it is frowned upon. This belief has been repeated by many quite reputable sources, and is something heard regularly when running Data Protection training sessions. Fortunately for both consumers, organisations, and humans in general, all processing of personal data does not need consent. Not only is consent not needed it is also not the preferred method, as noted by the ICO who have stated “no single basis is ’better’ or more important than the others – which basis is most appropriate to use will depend on your purpose and relationship with the individual”.

All processing of personal information must be fair and legal, and to be legal it needs to fit into a ‘condition for processing’. There are six conditions for processing which can legitimise your activity and these can be summaried as:

Consent: the individual has given clear consent for you to process their personal data for a specific purpose.

Contract: the processing is necessary for a contract or agreed service

Legal obligation: the processing is necessary for you to comply with the law

Vital interests: the processing is necessary to protect someone’s life.

Public task: the processing is necessary for you to perform a task in the public interest or for your official functions (this is mainly for the public sector)

Legitimate interests: the processing is necessary for your legitimate interests or the legitimate interests of a third party unless there is a good reason to protect the individual’s personal data which overrides those legitimate interests.

It is important to take note of the word ‘necessary’ here, and not try and legitimise processing which is surplus to requirements of the core processing through an incorrect condition. Activities should fit neatly into one of the above, and if it doesn’t that is the point where consent is considered and a clear way of capturing consent in a freely given way is set out to the individual. Consent should not be chosen as the condition for processing if the processing could cause detriment to a person, or if it isn’t a real choice. For example- if a person is buying a cup of coffee the coffee shop would not ask them if they consent to their payment details being processed in order to pay, as if the customer declined they would not be able to buy a cup of coffee, hence it is not a real choice. The coffee shop would be providing a service and so this processing would fit under the ‘contract’ provision. Although it can seem like a paper exercise, picking the incorrect condition for processing can lead to serious issues later on if you need to reuse the information for any purpose, or if a person wants to exercise their right to erasure, objection (or withdrawal of consent), or portability based on what condition for processing you have given, and finds out they are not eligible for the right. For example, if the coffee shop had asked the customer for their consent to process their payment information, in the future the customer would have the right for the shop to delete that information, which would put them in a tricky situation with either just the ICO or the tax man and the ICO depending on how they handled it.

The only hard and fast rule (which isn’t always necessarily clear cut, as we’ll discuss next week), is that direct marketing to individuals needs to have explicit consent in order to be legal under GDPR (and the Personal Electronic Communications Regulations). This was not necessarily always the case, as previously organisations could rely on ‘soft opt in’, a practice where if a person had already shown they were interested by enquiring or previously purchasing from an organisation, it could be assumed they wanted to hear from them in the future. This is now not the case, and a clear indication that the person wants to be marketed to separate to (for example) wanting to go ahead with a purchase or other service, must now be collected. In other words, the coffee shop can’t assume that the customer wants emails about their coffee offers because they bought coffee from their shop.

A significant amount of confusion seems to stem from the need to tell people how you are using their data. With a few exceptions, all organisations need to tell people what they are doing with their information in the form of a ‘privacy notice’, which is given on collection of the data. Some privacy notices do ask for consent, as privacy notices are given at the start of a relationship with an individual and this is the best time to gain consent. However most notices are for information only and are necessary in order for organisations to be transparent and open about what happens with individual’s personal data, not for collecting consent. Not using consent doesn’t exempt an organisation from giving notice, but giving a notice doesn’t mean you need a tick box for a person to agree with it either.

As with the Data Protection Act, the GDPR has an addition set of conditions for processing for ‘sensitive personal data’, also now known as ‘special categories’ (the name changes are no doubt to keep us all on our toes!). There are 10 conditions for processing for sensitive personal data, but these come with more caveats (which are not listed) than conditions for non-sensitive personal data:

Explicit consent (unless prohibited by law)

Necessary for employment or social security

Vital interests

A not-for-profit, foundation, or association is carrying out the processing in their legitimate interests

The information has already been made public by the data subject

Legal claims

Substantial public interests

Necessary for preventative or occupational medicine, assessment of working capacity, medical diagnosis, health and social care, or processed by a health professional

Public health

Archiving which is in the public interest (either historical or scientific).

For most organisations which are not a public body or a not for profit, this means that they almost definitely will need explicit consent to process sensitive personal information. For some types of data, this is a vague area of the legislation, for example, some browsing history could be considered sensitive personal data (if you were to search ‘how to get rid of a migraine’ or ‘gout symptom checker’), yet these have traditionally not been caught by the much stricter provisions for sensitive personal data. However, most data which comes under the definition of sensitive personal data will be quite clear cut and the ICO does not take lightly to it being processed without a clear legal basis.

Mythbusting conclusion: Your organisation has many more conditions for processing to rely on other than consent for most personal data, however you mustn’t (generally speaking) use a person’s data without their knowledge, and if you want to start processing sensitive personal data you are likely going to have to use explicit consent.

Erin Francis Long, LLM, Director at Riverwolf Consulting (www.riverwolfconsulting.com) has very kindly given me permission to post this article.

If UK charities had been far better at managing their donors’ exact communications wishes, this situation — which has left development/fundraising officers in fear and trustees paralysed — could well have not happened. Use your software and stop treating your donors, who are your most precious asset, like ATM machines!

We must stop calling ourselves fundraisers. We are facilitators for the board of trustees, programme staff, donors, and fundraising volunteers. We must cease to be hired hands doing the dirty work for others who think raising money is basically disgusting.

Until there is a sea change in UK fundraising culture, we’ll be pushed around by trustees, executive directors, and worst of all, finance directors, none of whom want to take responsibility for building warm, honest, transparent relationships with their charities’ donors or to take the time that a true investment in fundraising requires.

The FPS [Fundraising Preference Service] was practically inevitable in this climate and is a strike at the heart of charity, of free association, and of a well-funded, outspoken charitable sector. This situation makes me angry beyond belief and the state of philanthropy here has alarmed me since I returned to the UK in 2009.

That and the tar pit of charities bidding for contracted government services. That hasn’t done too well either, has it.

Very well put. Indeed, perhaps the next logical step is to really look at those relationships and what can realistically be achieved with staff becoming totally demoralized and having their working lives made miserable and trustee boards understanding what they need to do to deliver a strategy.

Proposed new rules about data sharing are being viewed with alarm by UK charities. The rules, needless to say, are a reaction to the supposed suicide-by-direct-mail of the deeply charitable Olive Cooke but … remember that wheeze about what to do when life throws lemons at you? The answer is to make lemonade!

One thing I often run into with new employers/clients is an up-tightness about list sharing that breaks the number one rule of donor communications: you aren’t your own audience. Suspicion and negativity then leak into opt-out language. Furthermore, promising ‘never to share’ is I believe both lazy and costly. What happens when (not if) many of your donors stop giving? What if many others never give more than a few pounds a year despite your expensive upgrade efforts? Their names could still provide you with income AND you will be introducing them to charities with which they might decide they have a closer affinity, and to businesses worthy of their purchases.

The opt-in approach is an additional communication with your donor baseand has the benefit of being a positive one. Make the opt-in area easy to read big instead of in fine print (as a temporarily visually challenged person, I’m noticing these things!). Add a link to a URL giving more details of why you are asking and exactly how the records will be used. Make sure you use a reliable list broker, that duplicate records are merged, and that the original dataset is never seen by or enters into the possession of the list renters.

Suggested language (off the top of my head): Would you be willing to hear from carefully selected charity partners and other responsible organisations? By agreeing, you could discover new opportunities for giving and purchasing, but more important, it’s a way for you to help raise more funds for the programmes at [name of charity/NPO], which you so generously support. You can always let us know if you change your mind by contacting us at [email and phone number].

I agree __ Not at the moment, thanks __

Any questions or comments, get in touch!

]]>All You Need is a Fundraising Planhttp://www.fundraisingpoint.net/2015/08/12/all-you-need-is-a-fundraising-plan/
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:51:43 +0000http://www.fundraisingpoint.net/?p=333Read the Rest...]]>It seems that the difference between fundraising success and fundraising flop is … having a plan. Pure and simple. Check out this fantastic Individual Benchmarking report! I would also like to know whether there is a correlation between the success of non-profits with fund-raising boards versus those whose board members (and senior execs) sit back and let the hired help do all the work. I’ll bet — and long experience tells me — that there is a strong one.

If you have the answer in hard numbers, get in touch!

]]>Wise words from a fundraising guruhttp://www.fundraisingpoint.net/2015/07/03/wise-words-from-a-fundraising-guru/
Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:38:26 +0000http://www.fundraisingpoint.net/?p=318Read the Rest...]]>I’m sure Larry C. Johnson, a wise American fundraising consultant, won’t mind my re-broadcasting his recent excellent blog about major gifts. His words particularly resonate with me, because a very new development job of mine in the States came to a swift end when my executive director, in despair after her one major donor decided to take a year off, ordered me to ‘go out and find someone rich.’

I’m sorry but it doesn’t work that way, no matter how many anecdotes you may hear to the contrary. The art and technique of major-gift fundraising is something you learn, preferably at the hands of someone who is really good at it. Said she, raising her hand.

Here is what Larry says*: ‘As I talk to other fundraisers, consultants and nonprofit executives there seems to be a preoccupation with what are called “major gifts.” Everyone seems to be on the look out for the “big one.”

‘Even in modest giving, the idea of the next ice bucket challenge looms large – but that’s a subject for another time.

‘Let me just say there are more than enough “major” donors to go around and they are much closer to your organization or cause than you may think.

‘You don’t have to contrive an introduction or barge into their personal lives by just “happening” to bump into them a their daughter’s soccer match. And there’s certainly no need to go creepy and “stalk” them, as I heard one fundraiser say recently.

‘Principle 4 of The Eight Principles is Learn & Plan. Before building your team of supporters, take a good long look at yourself. What is it you truly value?

‘Principle 5 of The Eight Principles is Work From the Inside Out, so you won’t need to look far.

‘Look around you. Do you see others who share your dreams?

‘Once you’ve identified your true supporters, make plans on bringing them into the fold. Naturally.

‘You won’t need to contrive a meeting, nor approach your investor through a feint or dodge.

‘Let the relationship grow naturally. That’s the way long-term relationships and transformative gifts are created.

‘Now that’s a unique fundraising idea.’

If you need help with readying your charity to ask for and receive major gifts — however you decide to define them — with identifying potential donors among your own supporters, or training your staff and volunteers, get in touch!

]]>Bean Counters 1, Development nilhttp://www.fundraisingpoint.net/2015/06/08/bean-counters-1-development-nil/
Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:28:27 +0000http://www.fundraisingpoint.net/?p=295Read the Rest...]]>Following a Mail on Sunday investigation, Oxfam has had to freeze its contract with Listen in addition to suspending involvement with Street Academy (a subsidiary of Shelter, one of my former employers).

This news is depressing. Some of us have staunchly defended charity fundraising from cheap political and media attacks but if bean counters continue to be in the ascendant, more of these horror stories will become headlines.

Who are the bean counters? They are usually charity Finance Directors. Once upon a time, they were the equal of Development/Fundraising Directors on the organisational chart but trustees are increasingly asking them to take charge of our departments in the belief that what we do is no different from any other money-making arm of charity. Furthermore, it is vaguely disgusting, mysterious, and probably best kept at arm’s length.

A contributing factor is that British development professionals call themselves fundraisers. This is not a mere matter of semantics: we may very well be fundraisers at times, but it is only a fraction of what we do, day in and day out, to generate voluntary income.

Finance Directors keep their organisations’ books in order. They are responsible for HR, payroll, taxes, IT, equipment and furniture, supplier contracts, filing annual reports with the Charity Commission, the office lease, insurance, risk assessment and mitigation, utilities, expending endowments and grants, supporting their finance & audit committee, managing departmental budgets, and much more. They have a job to do that is not our job. Without each other our charities cannot function.

True bean counters cannot understand or be persuaded that sometimes two or three or ten years are optimal for particular kinds of development activity. They demand purely financial outcomes from particular campaigns. They are not equipped to look at donor behaviour as just one of many indicators of progress in organisational development.

The result? Deep misery, expressed by many of my colleagues at Institute of Fundraising meetings and in online chat groups. Even worse is evidence of increasing donor dissatisfaction. I am assured that this organisational model works but then why do development officers complain about ‘crying outside the Finance Director’s door’? Why do these awful fundraising scandals hit the headlines days after day?

We need to defend our departments from the bean counters so that accusations of insensitivity and of harassing, lying to, and manipulating people for the sake of meeting the ‘ambitious fundraising targets’ for which we too often, rashly, have signed up – i.e., bottom-line behaviour – can become a thing of the past.

Fundraising – not development – needs fundamentally to be ‘owned’ by trustees, supported by trained professionals who work with them and with other volunteers, staff members, donors, and beneficiaries to meet both annual and multi-year fundraising goals. Development – not fundraising – needs to be managed by the executive director, who is the charity’s chief fundraiser.

Shaking money out of Joe Public isn’t why I’m in this profession: creating ever deepening relationships between donors and their chosen charities in order to address urgent social needs is.

More public services should be delivered by volunteers, says NCVO chair

An “army of volunteers” should be used to deliver public services, Martyn Lewis, the chair of the NCVO, said today.

Lewis, the former BBC broadcaster, told the Telegraph today that it was “crazy” not to involve volunteers in delivering publicly funded services, particularly in social care.

I have to respond. It’s a kneejerk response, but my knee is a mature one.

There is a place in our society for volunteers – a big one – but delivering essential public services is something to be enhanced and supported by volunteers; the suggestion that they should be handed responsibility for actually delivering them is just plain irresponsible.

As a former social worker, my mind boggles at the thought of someone untrained, unlicensed, and possibly without professional qualifications making life-changing decisions about children, vulnerable adults, or the frail elderly. How much more terrifying is the thought that the volunteer’s manager might also be a volunteer?

I am flatly opposed to public services being handed off in this way. We all know, or at least I hope we do, that the government wants to rid its balance sheet of that pesky, major, growing expense of providing social care. How dare the poor stay poor, why aren’t the educated staying educated, when will the elderly stop growing old …?

Our sector leadership continues to buy into this smokescreen for government cuts laughably termed the Big Society. They are not doing the charitable sector and those we serve any favours.

]]>The Death of Olive Cookehttp://www.fundraisingpoint.net/2015/05/20/the-death-of-olive-cooke/
Wed, 20 May 2015 13:24:34 +0000http://fundraising.unstuckcms.com/?p=260Read the Rest...]]>When Olive Cooke, a 92-year-old poppy seller, was found dead at the bottom of Avon Gorge, front-page headlines screamed that she had been hounded to death by charity appeals. David Cameron immediately leaped into the fray, calling for an investigation. The Fundraising Standards Board promptly launched an investigation into the behaviour of the charities dealing with Mrs Cooke, and my professional body, the Institute of Fundraising, piped up with lengthy quotes about the Code of Practice that fundraisers must follow.

Then charities started beating their own breasts in public. Let’s tighten up on phone calls, stop selling mailing lists, share data on older or vulnerable donors with each other, make it easier to opt out of appeals, and on and on.

Mrs Cooke’s family then absolved charities of any blame for their depressed relative’s death. As soon as I read that, I wrote on Civil Society’s on-line discussion page: Now that the family has cleared charities of responsibility for this poor woman’s suicide, I think several of the comments demanding further regulation of charities could safely and honourably be withdrawn.Let’s not make raising vital funds even harder, especially in response to what has turned out to be a very flimsy straw man indeed, kicked instantly to death by our Prime Minister and a couple of newspapers that went berserk for ideological reasons.

I was (not entirely to my surprise) rounded on by colleagues who said, in effect, that just because charities weren’t responsible for Mrs Cooke’s death, they COULD have been . . . thus we need to control ourselves or accept more regulation.

Let’s take a deep breath.

Development professionals listen to donors. In any new job, one of the first things I do is set up protocols to ensure that everyone dealing with donors and prospects reacts appropriately and uniformly to requests for changes in the way we contact them. I have never bought, sold or exchanged names without the consent of those on the lists. I know that my other colleagues behave in the same way.

We cannot presume that older donors want to be — or worse still, SHOULD be — deleted from solicitation lists simply on the grounds of their age and I have yet to work for a charity that found it financially fruitful to hound its supporters.

Purchased or exchanged mailing lists are vital to donor acquisition. They make it possible for charities and non-profits to grow and for donors to find places where their money can follow their hearts.

Telephone calls are often the only way to judge how donors are feeling about their relationship with a particular charity.

And as I said in another online post during this debate: exactly how many data protection laws are charities supposed to break in order to compare notes on donors and prospects?

It sounds like charities in touch with Olive Cooke behaved according to our shared professional ethics and — more than was absolutely required by those ethics — with a sensitivity that I find admirable.